Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 117AC6C for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:54:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:06:55 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from dosf1.alfie.wtf (dosf1.alfie.wtf [104.236.177.69]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9EAC168 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:54:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by dosf1.alfie.wtf (Postfix, from userid 0) id BAAA163955; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:47:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:47:28 +0000 From: Alfie John To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Message-ID: <20160608234728.GQ32334@dosf1.alfie.wtf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 23:59:24 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 151 MITM X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 23:54:25 -0000 Hi folks, Overall I think BIP 151 is a good idea. However unless I'm mistaken, what's to prevent someone between peers to suppress the initial 'encinit' message during negotiation, causing both to fallback to plaintext? Peers should negotiate a secure channel from the outset or backout entirely with no option of falling back. This can be indicated loudly by the daemon listening on an entirely new port. Alfie -- Alfie John https://www.alfie.wtf